Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[legaleagle_45]

As the study explains:
A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.58–60 Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them. ("58-60" refers to three of the 67 references cited).

Hi Pogo. It is extremely difficult to address all of the Myths and supporting documentation in this forum, however, most of them are based upon bogus studies funded primarily by the Joyce Foundation. The Branas study is a particularly virulent one which was produced specifically to be used in the SCOTUS case of McDonald vs Chicago. It was intentionally published so that Amicus for Chicago could use it while, Amicus for McDonald could not refute it... and there was plenty to be refuted.

First, in order to boost their numbers, the Branas study included as persons carrying a weapon those that were within 1/4 mile of their home or vehicle if said home or vehicle contained a gun.

Second and perhaps most important, 53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records. This subgroup of society is itself 22 times more likely to be shot or killed. This is inflation of probability by the inclusion of a high risk sub group. Another example... Did you know that people who rent homes are 4.4 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide than persons who own homes? This is not because renting a home "causes" homicides, but persons who rent generally include a much large sub group of poor people. Poor people are much more likely to be victims of homicides. One more... Did you know that you are much more likely to die in a hospital than almost anywhere else? I think you would readily discern that very sick people go to the hospital more often and that very sick people tend to die at a greater rate.

The study failed to account for what is known as linked correlation where a single factor will be causative of two distinct conditions. The fact is people who are at a high risk of being shot or killed are much more likely to carry a weapon precisely for that reason. One must be able to discern cause vs effect and distinguish it from effect vs cause. This is something the Branas study failed to do. It is now considered "junk science" .

This is a problem with studies on both sides of the issue. They are generally funded by entities with a partisan agenda and surprise, surprise, surprise... they invariably tend to support the political agenda of the persons or entities funding the study.

 

[Bfgrn]

As the study explains:
A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.58–60 Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them. ("58-60" refers to three of the 67 references cited).

Hi Pogo. It is extremely difficult to address all of the Myths and supporting documentation in this forum, however, most of them are based upon bogus studies funded primarily by the Joyce Foundation. The Branas study is a particularly virulent one which was produced specifically to be used in the SCOTUS case of McDonald vs Chicago. It was intentionally published so that Amicus for Chicago could use it while, Amicus for McDonald could not refute it... and there was plenty to be refuted.

First, in order to boost their numbers, the Branas study included as persons carrying a weapon those that were within 1/4 mile of their home or vehicle if said home or vehicle contained a gun.

Second and perhaps most important, 53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records. This subgroup of society is itself 22 times more likely to be shot or killed. This is inflation of probability by the inclusion of a high risk sub group. Another example... Did you know that people who rent homes are 4.4 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide than persons who own homes? This is not because renting a home "causes" homicides, but persons who rent generally include a much large sub group of poor people. Poor people are much more likely to be victims of homicides. One more... Did you know that you are much more likely to die in a hospital than almost anywhere else? I think you would readily discern that very sick people go to the hospital more often and that very sick people tend to die at a greater rate.

The study failed to account for what is known as linked correlation where a single factor will be causative of two distinct conditions. The fact is people who are at a high risk of being shot or killed are much more likely to carry a weapon precisely for that reason. One must be able to discern cause vs effect and distinguish it from effect vs cause. This is something the Branas study failed to do. It is now considered "junk science" .

This is a problem with studies on both sides of the issue. They are generally funded by entities with a partisan agenda and surprise, surprise, surprise... they invariably tend to support the political agenda of the persons or entities funding the study.

The gorilla in the room is the fact America's gun violence per capita is off the chart.

America's Gun Problem In One Chart - Business Insider

 

[Pogo]

As the study explains:
A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.58–60 Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them. ("58-60" refers to three of the 67 references cited).

Hi Pogo. It is extremely difficult to address all of the Myths and supporting documentation in this forum, however, most of them are based upon bogus studies funded primarily by the Joyce Foundation. The Branas study is a particularly virulent one which was produced specifically to be used in the SCOTUS case of McDonald vs Chicago. It was intentionally published so that Amicus for Chicago could use it while, Amicus for McDonald could not refute it... and there was plenty to be refuted.

First, in order to boost their numbers, the Branas study included as persons carrying a weapon those that were within 1/4 mile of their home or vehicle if said home or vehicle contained a gun.

Second and perhaps most important, 53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records. This subgroup of society is itself 22 times more likely to be shot or killed. This is inflation of probability by the inclusion of a high risk sub group. Another example... Did you know that people who rent homes are 4.4 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide than persons who own homes? This is not because renting a home "causes" homicides, but persons who rent generally include a much large sub group of poor people. Poor people are much more likely to be victims of homicides. One more... Did you know that you are much more likely to die in a hospital than almost anywhere else? I think you would readily discern that very sick people go to the hospital more often and that very sick people tend to die at a greater rate.

The study failed to account for what is known as linked correlation where a single factor will be causative of two distinct conditions. The fact is people who are at a high risk of being shot or killed are much more likely to carry a weapon precisely for that reason. One must be able to discern cause vs effect and distinguish it from effect vs cause. This is something the Branas study failed to do. It is now considered "junk science" .

This is a problem with studies on both sides of the issue. They are generally funded by entities with a partisan agenda and surprise, surprise, surprise... they invariably tend to support the political agenda of the persons or entities funding the study.

Hi Legaleagle, and thanks for taking this reasoned approach -- you wouldn't believe some of the crap I've taken from the less eloquent.

I think basically you're proposing that this is a chicken-or-the-egg question; does the armed citizen go out armed because of prior experience, or does that first experience happen because he's armed? Probably not possible to answer that one but again what they call "plausible mechanisms" look like plain common sense, i.e. that carrying can bestow a false sense of security, as well as up the ante to the armed criminal who now sees the game in front of him as escalated.

Your point "53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records" begs the corollary question of whether the entire population of those who carry is itself more likely to have criminal records. That's not addressed in the study, but would be a mitigating factor. In any event the refutation to this point would be a counter-study; all you've done here is try to impugn the source based on its funding. And I have to note I see no link to a Joyce Foundation, which after looking it up appears to be an organization funding projects around the Great Lakes, which wouldn't seem to include Philadelphia.

Finally, there are at least three dozen links in the article to back up the various points; studies, polls, newspaper stories, government figures... I doubt they share any common funding source, let alone the Joyce Foundation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I already proved it...look at the last column.

All that proves is you found a poll.

Why are you right wing turds so ignorant on how laws are made? You have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the rule of law. There is NO WAY a ban on all guns will ever happen. I am willing to bet the federal ban on assault weapons will never pass. Even universal background checks, which 92% of citizens support will be very difficult to get through both houses of Congress. Yet you paranoid 'slippery slope' fear infested morons believe laws can just be mandated by edict.

Take a course in civics. Stop being such a uninformed fear filled moron. Buy some big boy pants and grow a pair.

You already tried arguing with me about the rule of law. As I recall, you ran off with your tail between your legs after I used your words to show that you don't believe in it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Point ONE

Correlation is not equivalent to causation. However, a negative correlation is evidence of a lack of causation. Fact in the eary 1990's homicides peaked in the USA at in excess of 10/100,000. Since that time the number of firearms in private hands has doubled, gun laws have become much more lax with lawfull CCW laws now in effect in 49 states... and the homicide rate dropped steadily to 4.6/100,000 in 2011 levels not seen since the early 60's and late 50's.

Point TWO

Over 60 percent of your "gun deaths" are suicides, a cause of death which has been shown not to be dependent upon the mechanism employed.

“[R]emoving an easy and favored method of suicide was not likely to affect substantially the overall suicide rate because other methods would be chosen.”

World Health Organization, Changing Patterns in Suicide Behavior


This explains why gun free Japan has a suicide rate which is substantially greater than the USA suicide/homicide rate COMBINED. It also explains why France's suicide rate is nearly equivalent to the US suicide/homicide rate COMBINED

Point THREE:

Your chart is very interesting, but there does not seem to be any correlation whatsoever if you remove the USA.. In fact that is the case

Norway has one of Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rates, and
also one of its lowest murder rates. Holland has the lowest gun ownership rate but its murder rate is 50% greater than Norway’s. Finland has a gun ownership rate 14 times greater than its neighbor Estonia, yet Estonia’s murder rate is about seven times higher than Finland’s and it has higher suicide rates as well

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence, 30 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 651 (2007).

Have you ever considered, even for a moment that a country with the most diverse, ethnic religous, cultural, and racial population in the entire history of the world might just be an outlier?

 

[Bfgrn]

All that proves is you found a poll.

Why are you right wing turds so ignorant on how laws are made? You have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the rule of law. There is NO WAY a ban on all guns will ever happen. I am willing to bet the federal ban on assault weapons will never pass. Even universal background checks, which 92% of citizens support will be very difficult to get through both houses of Congress. Yet you paranoid 'slippery slope' fear infested morons believe laws can just be mandated by edict.

Take a course in civics. Stop being such a uninformed fear filled moron. Buy some big boy pants and grow a pair.

You already tried arguing with me about the rule of law. As I recall, you ran off with your tail between your legs after I used your words to show that you don't believe in it.

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are you right wing turds so ignorant on how laws are made? You have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the rule of law. There is NO WAY a ban on all guns will ever happen. I am willing to bet the federal ban on assault weapons will never pass. Even universal background checks, which 92% of citizens support will be very difficult to get through both houses of Congress. Yet you paranoid 'slippery slope' fear infested morons believe laws can just be mandated by edict.

Take a course in civics. Stop being such a uninformed fear filled moron. Buy some big boy pants and grow a pair.

You already tried arguing with me about the rule of law. As I recall, you ran off with your tail between your legs after I used your words to show that you don't believe in it.

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

Why is it that you think for the government to come for guns that must do it all at one time? Gun confiscastion started with the NFA. The we had the NFA 1969, and next we had the Brady bill, then Clintons assault weapons ban, and now we have frankestien bill Each act of the government is another step to taking firearms from America. Those actions of the federal government go against the second amendment,

 

[legaleagle_45]

Hi Legaleagle, and thanks for taking this reasoned approach -- you wouldn't believe some of the crap I've taken from the less eloquent.

I think basically you're proposing that this is a chicken-or-the-egg question; does the armed citizen go out armed because of prior experience, or does that first experience happen because he's armed? Probably not possible to answer that one but again what they call "plausible mechanisms" look like plain common sense, i.e. that carrying can bestow a false sense of security, as well as up the ante to the armed criminal who now sees the game in front of him as escalated.

Your point "53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records" begs the corollary question of whether the entire population of those who carry is itself more likely to have criminal records. That's not addressed in the study, but would be a mitigating factor. In any event the refutation to this point would be a counter-study; all you've done here is try to impugn the source based on its funding. And I have to note I see no link to a Joyce Foundation, which after looking it up appears to be an organization funding projects around the Great Lakes, which wouldn't seem to include Philadelphia.

Finally, there are at least three dozen links in the article to back up the various points; studies, polls, newspaper stories, government figures... I doubt they share any common funding source, let alone the Joyce Foundation.

The point of the Brana's study was to provide an argument against the licesnsing of lawful gun owners to carry concealed. Since persons with criminal records are not allowed to even own a gun the issue of lawful concealed carry license for these people was not even an issue. However, that information was only availble if one took the time to examine the raw data employed as it was not revealed in the study itself.

I think you will find... and correct me if I am wrong, that the authors of the studies include Arthur Kellerman, David Hemingway, Branas and a host of others. Joyce also funds law reviews, having purchased the entire issue of 3 distinct law reviews so they could publish anti 2nd amend articles in same... caused quite a scandel at Stanford. Check out the flow chart on the wiki page for Joyce. The Violence Policy Center is a basically a wholly owned subsidary of Joyce.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wun, welcome to the site and thanks for addressing the topic after all these tangents.

#1: you've answered with a "what if" conjecture. It's been played for some time here but the fact is there's no evidence.

No evidence of an intent to ban all guns? Seriously? How do you explain this statement?

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

Brady Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#2: I see both the premise and the conclusion as non sequiturs. Nobody ever claimed that guns shoot themselves, nor do I see what the point would be in proving or disproving that.

Let me get this straight, the guy that you quoted, who actually says that the statement that guns don't kill people is a myth, doesn't believe that guns kill people?

#3: none of these myths are "facts"; what it says is fact check; it then makes its case by citing three examples, all of which are linked in the article.

Here is his "fact check" for that claim.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

While concerns about road rage have grown over the past decade, states have made it easier for motorists to carry firearms in their vehicles. Are motorists with guns in the car more or less likely to engage in hostile and aggressive behavior?
METHODS:

Data come from a 2004 national random digit dial survey of over 2,400 licensed drivers. Respondents were asked whether, in the past year, they (1) made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist, (2) aggressively followed another vehicle too closely, and (3) were victims of such hostile behaviors.
RESULTS:

Seventeen percent admitted making obscene or rude gestures, and 9% had aggressively followed too closely. Forty-six percent reported victimization by each of these behaviors in the past year. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.
CONCLUSION:

Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.

Is an armed society a polite society? Guns a... [Accid Anal Prev. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Care to point out where the respondents were asked whether they had a gun?

#4: I agree the claim of "zero" is impossible to prove and one of the things that if I had written the article wouldn't have made it to press. But in the bit about the ER, they're talking about the gunshot wounds that show up there as patients, because that's where those on the wrong end of a gun tend to end up -- there or the morgue.

It is not only impossible to prove, it can be conclusively dis-proven.

#5: no, that's not the point the article makes; it's saying that in the environment where guns are present, which is what having a gun at home" means, you're statistically more likely to be murdered, killed by accident, or commit suicide. As opposed to being in a place where the gun is not there.

In other words, gun kill people.

(Personal comment: this is a vital pointer to the real underlying dynamic, the "gun culture". Related to what Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock meant noting that "if he (Jovan Belcher) didn't possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today"... maybe, maybe not, but the point being that our gun culture has us reaching for firepower at the slightest upset. This is what I believe is the heart of the matter)

That is an absurd comment, and indicates that you don't know anything about the gun culture. The gun culture teaches people not to do what you just described.

#6: Not sure what the point about criminals is, but said criminals exist and are part of the real world; if some such criminal accosts you and he's armed and you are too, well that's what the study is talking about.

As the study explains:
A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual's risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.58–60 Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them. ("58-60" refers to three of the 67 references cited).

Strange, the FBI says that a gun is at least 10 times more likely to be used in self defense than to be used in a crime.

#7: not sure what 'apples-organges' refers to -- their point is that women are much more likely to be shot by an intimate than by a stranger.

Which has nothing to do with the "myth" that guns make women safer. If a woman is attacked by a male a gun will counter any advantages the that male has in strength and size. That is such a basic fact that the only way to argue is pretend the argument is about something else, hence apples and oranges.

#8: ?? I don't know what your point is here.

The chart he posted has nothing to do with the actual claim which happens to be facially absurd.

#9: There are five different links citing those studies, so no it's not "made up". They're all there in the article. Did you read the article?

I did, and the studies are bunk. Even if we assume the polls are 100% accurate, which is absurd, all it shows is that a smaller percentage of the population owns guns. You would have to compare that percentage to the population growth in order to prove that fewer people own guns, none of the studies do that. By the way. lots of studies show that people are moving to cities from suburbs, and cities have stricter gun control laws. That is not an indication that guns are less popular unless you think people are likely to break laws.

#10: I believe their point is if you say "we don't need new laws, just enforce the ones we have" while at the same time weakening the ones we have, then your premise is dishonest. Kind of like saying "you don't need a new car, just use the one you have, and by the way I'm taking your tires".

You believe that claptrap, and you want me to believe that you don't believe in gun control? The simple fact that only one fact in that last fact check are flat out lies, and the one that is true has nothing to do with any intent to weaken gun laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why are you right wing turds so ignorant on how laws are made? You have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the rule of law. There is NO WAY a ban on all guns will ever happen. I am willing to bet the federal ban on assault weapons will never pass. Even universal background checks, which 92% of citizens support will be very difficult to get through both houses of Congress. Yet you paranoid 'slippery slope' fear infested morons believe laws can just be mandated by edict.

Take a course in civics. Stop being such a uninformed fear filled moron. Buy some big boy pants and grow a pair.

You already tried arguing with me about the rule of law. As I recall, you ran off with your tail between your legs after I used your words to show that you don't believe in it.

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

Cute, but I do not own any guns, which just proves that your delusions and reality do not make a valid Venn diagram.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, multiple responses. I'll take the low-hanging fruit first:

Wun, welcome to the site and thanks for addressing the topic after all these tangents.

#1: you've answered with a "what if" conjecture. It's been played for some time here but the fact is there's no evidence.

No evidence of an intent to ban all guns? Seriously? How do you explain this statement?

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

Brady Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't need to "explain" that; it's not my statement. However I can explain what you're doing here. Actually I made that point earlier but you don't read too good.

At base this claim could be described as the "you just wait" fallacy, based on paranoia:
"Run! Martians are invading the earth!!"
"There's no evidence of that."
"Of course there's no evidence. That's how we know! What do you think, they're gonna announce it? Of course not -- and sure enough we've heard nothing. That's how we know!"
-- hard to cope with illlogic like that. And in any case your quote above speaks of "controlling handguns" -- not confiscation. Again reading is fun... duh... mental.

Let me get this straight, the guy that you quoted, who actually says that the statement that guns don't kill people is a myth, doesn't believe that guns kill people?

I don't know what that even means. You really shouldn't be playing with semantics before you learn to read.

Here is his "fact check" for that claim.

Is an armed society a polite society? Guns a... [Accid Anal Prev. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Care to point out where the respondents were asked whether they had a gun?

That level of detail isn't going to be in the abstract, and I'm not shelling out 41 bucks for the full text. Be my jest. And I see you've conveniently left out the other two supporting links, so we'll take that as another concession.

It is not only impossible to prove, it can be conclusively dis-proven.

That's it??
Ipse dixit = 0.

In other words, gun kill people.

No -- in other words, stats do not associate having guns around with safety. What is your native language anyway?

That is an absurd comment, and indicates that you don't know anything about the gun culture. The gun culture teaches people not to do what you just described.

Interesting. Tell that to Kassandra Perkins or her orphaned baby. Or the victims at Sandy Hook. Or Aurora. Or Webster. Or Oak Creek. Or Tucson. Or Columbine. Or Virginia Tech. I'm sure they'll find it reassuring that their killers were not fascinated with guns and picked them out personally, tailored for their murder. Tell the directors of all the cop shows and murder movies that what makes them so much money doesn't exist. That oughta go over big. Tell all the gun shows. Tell the NRA they have no reason to exist. Tell the criminals and gangbangers that they're "absurd" to believe in a gun culture. Tell all these people that they're nothing special compared to the rest of the world:

I keep pointing out, the mass murderers in the above incidents along with all the others are not out for murder. They're you for carnage. You don't get carnage on a wide scale from a fixed location with anything but a gun.

Strange, the FBI says that a gun is at least 10 times more likely to be used in self defense than to be used in a crime.

Strange that the FBI let you speak for them, but this undocumented ipse dixit has nothing to do with the myth-point anyway, which was "carrying a gun makes you safer". What you have here is a red herring. Or it would be if it had any substance.

Which has nothing to do with the "myth" that guns make women safer. If a woman is attacked by a male a gun will counter any advantages the that male has in strength and size. That is such a basic fact that the only way to argue is pretend the argument is about something else, hence apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges" wasn't your term. As difficult as reading is for you, it's prolly not advisable to venture out to other posters' intentions. As to the point, yes I'm sure any woman in possession of a gun has that gun permanently grafted to her skin and there's no possibility at all of having it taken away, at which point she's in more trouble that she would have been unarmed. Duh. This goes back again to the fundamental fallacy that the way to counter gun violence is with more guns. Like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

The chart he posted has nothing to do with the actual claim which happens to be facially absurd.

"Facially"? What kind of sites do you have open in other tabs?
Yes, the claim is absurd. That's his point. Actually I'm not fully on board with it, but them's the stats.

#9: There are five different links citing those studies, so no it's not "made up". They're all there in the article. Did you read the article?

I did, and the studies are bunk. Even if we assume the polls are 100% accurate, which is absurd, all it shows is that a smaller percentage of the population owns guns. You would have to compare that percentage to the population growth in order to prove that fewer people own guns, none of the studies do that. By the way. lots of studies show that people are moving to cities from suburbs, and cities have stricter gun control laws. That is not an indication that guns are less popular unless you think people are likely to break laws.

#10: I believe their point is if you say "we don't need new laws, just enforce the ones we have" while at the same time weakening the ones we have, then your premise is dishonest. Kind of like saying "you don't need a new car, just use the one you have, and by the way I'm taking your tires".

You believe that claptrap, and you want me to believe that you don't believe in gun control? The simple fact that only one fact in that last fact check are flat out lies, and the one that is true has nothing to do with any intent to weaken gun laws.

I believe that's what they're saying because I know how to read. What do you believe they're saying?

Do you actually understand that I and the article writer are two different people? Or is that over your head?

 

[Pogo]

Hi Legaleagle, and thanks for taking this reasoned approach -- you wouldn't believe some of the crap I've taken from the less eloquent.

I think basically you're proposing that this is a chicken-or-the-egg question; does the armed citizen go out armed because of prior experience, or does that first experience happen because he's armed? Probably not possible to answer that one but again what they call "plausible mechanisms" look like plain common sense, i.e. that carrying can bestow a false sense of security, as well as up the ante to the armed criminal who now sees the game in front of him as escalated.

Your point "53% of the subjects who were shot or killed while carrying had criminal records" begs the corollary question of whether the entire population of those who carry is itself more likely to have criminal records. That's not addressed in the study, but would be a mitigating factor. In any event the refutation to this point would be a counter-study; all you've done here is try to impugn the source based on its funding. And I have to note I see no link to a Joyce Foundation, which after looking it up appears to be an organization funding projects around the Great Lakes, which wouldn't seem to include Philadelphia.

Finally, there are at least three dozen links in the article to back up the various points; studies, polls, newspaper stories, government figures... I doubt they share any common funding source, let alone the Joyce Foundation.

The point of the Brana's study was to provide an argument against the licesnsing of lawful gun owners to carry concealed. Since persons with criminal records are not allowed to even own a gun the issue of lawful concealed carry license for these people was not even an issue. However, that information was only availble if one took the time to examine the raw data employed as it was not revealed in the study itself.

I think you will find... and correct me if I am wrong, that the authors of the studies include Arthur Kellerman, David Hemingway, Branas and a host of others. Joyce also funds law reviews, having purchased the entire issue of 3 distinct law reviews so they could publish anti 2nd amend articles in same... caused quite a scandel at Stanford. Check out the flow chart on the wiki page for Joyce. The Violence Policy Center is a basically a wholly owned subsidary of Joyce.

The authors are listed right at the top. They are: Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe. And again, I see no reference to the Joyce Foundation.

In any case what you're aiming at is still poisoning the well; a biased funding source may indicate smoke, but you've still got to prove fire. So far I don't even see proof of smoke.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hey Pogo, has the thought ever crossed your mind that the 'gun culture' of 99.9999% of us law-abiding gun owners is a DIRECT OPPOSITE of the 'gun culture' of the criminals and mental cases that are committing all the murders and mayhem?

If it does cross your mind will there be enough in it's way to even slow it down?

 

[Pogo]

Hey Pogo, has the thought ever crossed your mind that the 'gun culture' of 99.9999% of us law-abiding gun owners is a DIRECT OPPOSITE of the 'gun culture' of the criminals and mental cases that are committing all the murders and mayhem?

If it does cross your mind will there be enough in it's way to even slow it down?

No. It's the same value in both cases, i.e. that "I need a gun". What morals or lack thereof either group may also possess are unrelated.

Just as both we and they believe in the "money culture", i.e. that "I need money". Again, how you go about getting it is irrelevant to the value at the base of the desire. It's in no way an "opposite".

If you carry a gun for protection against the gangbanger, and the gangbanger carries a gun for protection against a rival gangbanger, then you and the first guy have that purpose in common, not in difference. You share the same value: to fight violence with violence.

Both gun culture and materialism culture lead good and bad people equally. Same with "TV culture" or "fast food culture" or "NFL culture" or anything you could name that we all as a society hold in common popularity. It has nothing to do with personal morals. It has to do with societal values. Ours accepts gunplay and death and celebrates it in pop culture; that's a value.

Values evolve; we now look down on drunk driving and smoking in restaurants, though we didn't always. Those are changed values.

 

[Bfgrn]

You already tried arguing with me about the rule of law. As I recall, you ran off with your tail between your legs after I used your words to show that you don't believe in it.

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

Why is it that you think for the government to come for guns that must do it all at one time? Gun confiscastion started with the NFA. The we had the NFA 1969, and next we had the Brady bill, then Clintons assault weapons ban, and now we have frankestien bill Each act of the government is another step to taking firearms from America. Those actions of the federal government go against the second amendment,

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This thread needs to be bumped for eternity, so new viewers can read the arguments presented by both sides and make up their own minds.

Btw, you like my Hammer wielding hero smiting evil?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't need to "explain" that; it's not my statement. However I can explain what you're doing here. Actually I made that point earlier but you don't read too good.

At base this claim could be described as the "you just wait" fallacy, based on paranoia:
"Run! Martians are invading the earth!!"
"There's no evidence of that."
"Of course there's no evidence. That's how we know! What do you think, they're gonna announce it? Of course not -- and sure enough we've heard nothing. That's how we know!"
-- hard to cope with illlogic like that. And in any case your quote above speaks of "controlling handguns" -- not confiscation. Again reading is fun... duh... mental.

Reading is definitely fun, you should try it.

The first myth the absurdly idiotic thing you posted attacked was "They are coming for your guns." As has already been explained to you, you posted this, you are responsible for it. Nonetheless, I never said you said it, what I said is that any attempt to deny that the intent of some people is ban guns is absurd. You can blather on about delusions all day long, it doesn't change the fact that there are multiple people that have flat out stated they want to remove all guns from civilian hands.

Talk about low hanging fruit.

I don't know what that even means. You really shouldn't be playing with semantics before you learn to read.

That would be funny if you were smart enough to know what semantics means.

That level of detail isn't going to be in the abstract, and I'm not shelling out 41 bucks for the full text. Be my jest. And I see you've conveniently left out the other two supporting links, so we'll take that as another concession.

I want to point something out that anyone with a brain would have noticed. The point of the quote about an armed society is a polite society is that, if everyone is armed, everyone will be polite. Given that the study assumes that most people are not armed, and it does not indicate if the people who allegedly had guns when they had incidents of road rage were carrying legally, you really should drop your insistence on defending this position.

That's it??
Ipse dixit = 0.

Do you know how to search the forum? That stupid claim has been debunked so may times that me doing so again is the intellectual equivalent of spamming.

No -- in other words, stats do not associate having guns around with safety. What is your native language anyway?

Except that stats actually do correlate to people being safer when there are guns around. If it actually worked the other way around police stations would be the most dangerous places in the country.

Oops.

Interesting. Tell that to Kassandra Perkins or her orphaned baby. Or the victims at Sandy Hook. Or Aurora. Or Webster. Or Oak Creek. Or Tucson. Or Columbine. Or Virginia Tech. I'm sure they'll find it reassuring that their killers were not fascinated with guns and picked them out personally, tailored for their murder. Tell the directors of all the cop shows and murder movies that what makes them so much money doesn't exist. That oughta go over big. Tell all the gun shows. Tell the NRA they have no reason to exist. Tell the criminals and gangbangers that they're "absurd" to believe in a gun culture. Tell all these people that they're nothing special compared to the rest of the world:

​

I keep pointing out, the mass murderers in the above incidents along with all the others are not out for murder. They're you for carnage. You don't get carnage on a wide scale from a fixed location with anything but a gun.

You want me to tell people that make movies that there movies are not true? Should I invent a ward for that when I talk to them? What about fiction, I like the way that sounds, maybe we could call movies that present things that are factually inaccurate fiction, and movies that present things that are true documentaries. We might even be able to talk the Academy into giving awards based on whether a movie is fiction or not.

Please, keep saying stupid things to defend your support of gun control, I enjoyed that.

Strange that the FBI let you speak for them, but this undocumented ipse dixit has nothing to do with the myth-point anyway, which was "carrying a gun makes you safer". What you have here is a red herring. Or it would be if it had any substance.

How is repeating something someone said speaking for them? Talk about red herrings.

"Apples and oranges" wasn't your term. As difficult as reading is for you, it's prolly not advisable to venture out to other posters' intentions. As to the point, yes I'm sure any woman in possession of a gun has that gun permanently grafted to her skin and there's no possibility at all of having it taken away, at which point she's in more trouble that she would have been unarmed. Duh. This goes back again to the fundamental fallacy that the way to counter gun violence is with more guns. Like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

I never said it was.

As difficult as thinking is for you, me using my ability to reason about how someone could use a term in relation to something is actually part of the process of communication. Intelligent, and even stupid, people do it every day. You should try it sometime.

"Facially"? What kind of sites do you have open in other tabs?
Yes, the claim is absurd. That's his point. Actually I'm not fully on board with it, but them's the stats.

Are multisyllabic words to complicated for your comprehension?

You keep trying to say you don't support your post, yet you keep defending it.

I believe that's what they're saying because I know how to read. What do you believe they're saying?

Didn't you just jump on me for knowing how to read when I explained why someone would call a stupid comparison apples and oranges?

Do you actually understand that I and the article writer are two different people? Or is that over your head?

Do you understand that you are defending the positions the drooling idiot in the article took?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey Pogo, has the thought ever crossed your mind that the 'gun culture' of 99.9999% of us law-abiding gun owners is a DIRECT OPPOSITE of the 'gun culture' of the criminals and mental cases that are committing all the murders and mayhem?

If it does cross your mind will there be enough in it's way to even slow it down?

No. It's the same value in both cases, i.e. that "I need a gun". What morals or lack thereof either group may also possess are unrelated.

Just as both we and they believe in the "money culture", i.e. that "I need money". Again, how you go about getting it is irrelevant to the value at the base of the desire. It's in no way an "opposite".

If you carry a gun for protection against the gangbanger, and the gangbanger carries a gun for protection against a rival gangbanger, then you and the first guy have that purpose in common, not in difference. You share the same value: to fight violence with violence.

Both gun culture and materialism culture lead good and bad people equally. Same with "TV culture" or "fast food culture" or "NFL culture" or anything you could name that we all as a society hold in common popularity. It has nothing to do with personal morals. It has to do with societal values. Ours accepts gunplay and death and celebrates it in pop culture; that's a value.

Values evolve; we now look down on drunk driving and smoking in restaurants, though we didn't always. Those are changed values.

No it is not.

The law abiding people view guns as a tool used for various legal purposes. The criminals view guns as a way to get other things from people that do not have guns. Even Hollywood gets that part right, you should watch more movies.

I am pretty sure we always looked down on drunk driving, which leads me to believe that the only thing that changed is your desperation in your attempt to control guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

Why is it that you think for the government to come for guns that must do it all at one time? Gun confiscastion started with the NFA. The we had the NFA 1969, and next we had the Brady bill, then Clintons assault weapons ban, and now we have frankestien bill Each act of the government is another step to taking firearms from America. Those actions of the federal government go against the second amendment,

Posting pictures of a guy you call stupid is not a debate technique to anyone with an IQ that approaches room temperature.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's with this lying and faux victory crap? You have been throttled at every turn. I have gone nowhere. I am still here. What you fear will never happen...NEVER. It is total bullshit paranoia. It is based on nothing that could be mistaken for logic, common sense or reason. It is tin foil hat shit.

Quantum Windbag

Why is it that you think for the government to come for guns that must do it all at one time? Gun confiscastion started with the NFA. The we had the NFA 1969, and next we had the Brady bill, then Clintons assault weapons ban, and now we have frankestien bill Each act of the government is another step to taking firearms from America. Those actions of the federal government go against the second amendment,

Does that mean you are clueless on what you support?
How did that address the question asked of you?